What is divisible is unity and what is indivisible is not unity. What is your opinion?

Answer 1

principles of arithmetics can not be applied in case of philosophical term unity.

Answer 2

That depends on your definition of unity. The way your statement describes it, I gather that your view of unity is a union of individual things that could be separate but are instead unified. What is indivisible has only one component that cannot be divided from itself, so it is not in unity because it is not in a relationship of union with other things.

I guess I might have to agree with that, to an extent. It wouldn't make a lot of sense to say an indivisible thing, like the smallest component of an atom, is in unity, because the word unity implies parts that are unified. If such a thing has no divisible parts, there can be nothing in it that is unified with anything else. However, I think there are also more qualifications for the term unity than simply being divisible. There are armies all over the world fighting with each other as we speak. They are obviously divisible from each other, but would we say that they are in unity because of that? Probably not.

Answer 3

The Hinduism says that there is unity in diversity and
diversity in unity. There are many interpretations for this.

When there is diversity or division, people crave for unity.
When there is unity, people crave for diversity or division.
They work like cycles of time, day and night, one after another. Every thing is subject to cycles of time. What
appears like unity can not remain as such for a long time.
it has the seed to get divisible.

"Our two minds .... One is an act of the emotional
mind, the other of the rational mind. In a very real
sense we have two minds, one that thinks and one that
feels" (Daniel Goleman, Emotional Intelligence,
Bloomsbury Publishing, London, 1996, page 8). This
rational mind is also called the faculty of logic and
reason. The emotional mind is the sub-conscious mind.
It looks for unity in diversity. The one unity it hopes is
religion. The rational mind is the conscious mind. It looks
for diversity and self identity even when following a unified
religion.

Answer 4

Mereological nihilism is a much more common and useful view than this notion.

What exists aren't "unities" that are themselves worthy of objecthood. No, they are only sets of objects, the true atoms of physical reality. If you give the identity conditions for a perceptual "object," you need the time-space points of the atoms. The parts compose but aren't identical to the whole. We don't need to posit "unity" because the unity is just shorthand for a collection of indivisibles. Unity drops out.


You should familiarize yourself with mereology if you want to defend your position instead of posting what seem like truisms because they precisely lack philosophical scope.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mereology/

Answer 5

The rigors of divisibility and indivisibility is irrelevant. The need of the hour in any era has been integration.

Answer 6

What is divisible is unity, and what is indivisible is ZERO.

Answer 7

I think you have it backwards.... What is indivisable (not able to tear apart) is unified.... What is divisible (CAN be torn apart or sectioned off) is NOT unity...

Hope this helps..

Answer 8

Both are true.